http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
MEANWHILE, at the other convention this week, that of the American Sociological Association
held in Washington, D.C., another president gave a speech with a vision of the future. It was
-- incredibly! -- well-received. Duck! The audience were professors who are teaching your
children what was once regarded as social science. (So far, few students seem to be buying.)

The ASA presidential address was delivered by Joe R. Feagin of the University of Florida, who
won his job in a closely contested election last year. The official theme of the meetings was
"Oppression, Domination and Liberation."
Reviewing the text of his speech, two questions come to mind: "Can a person be a sociologist
and a capitalist/globalist?" Feagin's answer is pretty clearly no. But second: "Can a
sociologist even study capitalism and globalism with an open mind?" Again, Feagin indicates,
"No."

Such a view, alas, can go a long way toward pulling down the temple of social science, which
still has much to offer. After all, the discipline is largely funded through votes of
politicians of two major parties, each now endorsing the wonders of modern capitalism and
global trade. If challenged, Feagin, and Feaginites, will no doubt demand academic freedom to
promulgate their views against academic freedom.

Leaning heavily on quotations from Karl Marx, Feagin sketches in "troubling conditions created
or aggravated by modern capitalism." He notes: "The real effects of expanding capitalism for a
large proportion of the globe's inhabitants, are not only greater inequality, but also job
restructuring, loss of land and/or forced migration."

Assume for a tortured moment that Feagin makes sense. Unasked is the obvious question, "Can
growing inequality occur simultaneously with greater wealth and income across class lines?"
Consider: A multinational plant comes into a poor country, makes multimillionaires of the
investors and brings workers up to the lower-middle class. U.N. data clearly show just such a
pattern across much of the world. Feagin says don't ask. Literally, don't ask.

Feagin announces: "The capitalist economy now girdles the globe, generating profits at the huge
cost of increasing environmental degradation." But hold on, weren't the capitalist economies of
Western Europe far cleaner than the non-capitalist economies of Eastern Europe? Don't ask.
(There are no verifiable facts for sociological deconstructionists.)

Could it be that capitalism and globalism have helped create a system in America where
unemployment is almost nonexistent, wages are rising, consumers at the mall get lower prices
and greater variety, all while American workers climb the skill curve to retain the highest
median income in history, anywhere? Don't ask.(Feagin also thinks that "self-replicating
robots ... may well threaten the survival of the human species by the end of this century.")

Why not ask? Because, says Feagin, social science has a long tradition, going back to 1906,
when Albion Small addressed the first meeting of what was then called the American Sociological
Society (is the old acronym appropriate again?) and "argued vigorously that social research was
not an end in itself but should serve to improve society." Not just serve in any old way, says
Feagin, but by promoting views that would reduce or eliminate "social injustice," which he will
be happy to define. He salutes turn-of-the-century social science pioneers -- white women,
black men and black women, he stresses -- who used sociology to promote causes, including
tenement reform, child labor legislation, public health programs, feminism and the anti-war
(WWI) movement. Actually, their causes were mostly sound, and they did good work. They were
splendid propagandists, too.

So were other social scientists of the time, who were promulgating "scientific racism," which
stressed that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were lesser breeds than other
Americans. The immigrants had smaller skull sizes and less intellect, all scientifically proven
by detailed tests, showing their disproportionate stupidity, ranked from "idiot," to
"imbecile," to "moron." The latter were most dangerous because they could pass as normal.
Activism unchecked by science can cut two ways.

Feagin denounces other prominent sociologists, like Robert Park and William Ogburn, who in the
1920s and 1930s said the discipline would lose credibility if it went from objective research
toward passion and propaganda. It's been a long fight.

What does it mean? Seymour Martin Lipset, 78, a past president of the ASA, says that for the
most part modern American sociology has abandoned science for politics. As it happens, Marty
Lipset received, long overdue, the ASA Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award, and chooses
not to publicly dump on his hosts. He does call attention to the existence of independent,
professionally oriented organizations in other disciplines seeking to redress the balance
against politicization.

Switching to the other convention, we hear "Leave no child behind." Feaginism leaves them all
behind, ignorant of the world around them. Marty Lipset and like-minded sociologists should
start an alternative organization. And because social scientists have proved that longevity is
linked to meaningful activity, I believe that if Lipset leads the way, he will live to be
120.